A: Ninety, apparently.
The UK Labour Government wants legislation which will allow them to hold suspected terrorists for 90 days without charge.
The normal amount is 48 hours, two days, and they can apply for a bit more under the current law, but they want 90 whole days, that's three months, a quarter of a year.
Spy Blog has a good round up of the provisions of the Bill, which are, as you might guess pretty illiberal (see you just can't trust ex-Marxists with your civil liberties, they don't really have the concept of freedom and liberty ingrained in their souls).
Don't glorify terrorism
This same bill has provisions against "glorifying terrorism" (what was it the Houses of Parliament were doing with rather sympathetic Guy Fawkes re-enactment?) to add to the existing (?) provisions on stirring up hatred based on race or religion. I hate this woolly 'stirring up hatred' language. What the heck does that mean? For some people, you'd have to stir pretty darn hard and with a pretty big stick to raise hatred beyond a low simmer. For others, you can watch that pot, and it will still boil over with hatred.
We're on the brink of a state where it's "Don't think it. If you must think it, don't say it. If you must say it, for goodness sake don't write it down. If you write it down, don't be surprised." But I digress...again.
90 Days
But back to the 90 day issue, which is what's drawing the most attention. I might say I wouldn't mind holding people for 90 days without charge if only I trusted that the police and intelligence would use these 90 days sparingly and with the best of intentions, but that's just not the case. I just do not believe that a democracy should be holding people 2 or 3 days (I'd prefer 1 day) without charge. The current limit is 14 days for suspected terrorism (and even then you need special permission for the second week).
But what really, really inflames me about this debate is that the Labour government is spinning against anyone who questions the need for 90 day detention. They are essentially saying that those who question will be to blame if this doesn't pass.
The Independent says:
Mr Blair admitted yesterday he faced defeat over the 90-day plan, but told a Downing Street press conference he believed any compromise forced on him by Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat MPs would be "a compromise with the nation's security" in the wake of the July bombings in London.
Mr Blair's main reason for wanting this is because 'the police and the security forces have requested it'. And?
They want it because the Crown Prosecution Service is hopeless and slow and they are the ones responsible for bringing charges. They want it because it will make their lives easier, not because it's strictly necessary. Entering our houses without warrants, tapping our phones or allowing to stop and search us without issuing cause (oh wait, they can do that last one) would make their lives easier. But that doesn't mean we should stand for it.
The public swallows it
What I really don't get is why the public seems to have fallen lock step behind this. Few UK bloggers seem to be outraged by this. Here's one who seems to assume that 90 days is just right. And even at Harry's Place, the 90 days are blindly supported. (Fortunately, many commenters aren't so easily swayed, which gives me some hope.)
The Sun is running a big campaign to push through the 90 days and have encouraged their readers to phone a special line in support.
Come on people of England. Don't you understand that when the State takes gross powers to itself it doesn't just use them against people you don't like. They have the power to use it against you, too.
_________
My pal Kathy doesn't support the 90 days.
And here's another blogger who thinks it's a farce
Tags: anti-terrorism, terrorism, UK politics, Tony Blair
8 comments:
Bringing in rediculous laws will not stop terror.
Ken Livingston, The Mayor of London has joined with Liberty, key Muslim and Sikh organisations, community organisations, faith leaders, MPs, trade unionists, lawyers and opinion-formers to encourage public debate on proposed governmental measures to oppose terrorism.
You can read about this statement and sign it here:
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/united-communities/index.jsp
But if Ken is against it, can it really be bad?
My heart says no, but my head says yes. 90 day detention without charge is a travesty of justice, and the justifications are even worse - "Muslim terror suspects need plenty of time for prayer breaks" was one of the funnier ones. Still, I ain't signing anything with Ken's name on the masthead. When he stops courting clerics who advocate stoning gays, maybe I'll reconsider.
"When he stops courting clerics who advocate stoning gays, maybe I'll reconsider."
Actually, I probably won't. He was sucking up to the IRA before it was de rigeur. He's a bad sort. Although his position is a lot more consistent than Tony Blair's "Osama is evil incarnate, but Gerry is a lovely fluffy bunny" position.
Hi Vol - nice site and thanks for linking to the Bag of Bears.
At the risk of being a pedant I didn't actually express a view on the 90 day period, merely commented on the various polls that were put about on them.
I found the issue interesting because many people argued that increasing the time period was internment. Now that sounds like a good argument, but in fact you can already hold people for 14 days without charge, so my position was that internment is mistaken, because to all intents and purposes we already have it. Therefore all the debate was about was the time period - there was no principle involved in any of the debates.
It's been fascinating politics though - well worth the admission fee.
My own view is that terrorist suspects and everybody else should be charged or released within 48 hours. *However* there should be no restrictions on what you can do after charging them, I can see no reason why interviews can't continue after charging. Also I certainly don't think suspects are morally entitled to prayer breaks or any other special consideration for religious demands, which are fundamentally arbitrary. In the US case of abusing inmates' Korans, I think that's stupid but I'd say that access to a Koran, Bible etc in the first place should be an earned privilege not a right. Far better than torturing people.
Bagged Bear: apologies if I miscontrued. I suppose I feel so strongly about this that unless it's an outright condemnation I take it as tacit approval.
Spouting Shite: I checked out Red Ken's little statement. It seems fine on the face of it, but it's woolly lip service to civil liberties. My own MP, Sadiq Khan signed up to it, but that didn't stop him from voting for 90 day detention.
Ooops, Sadiq Khan DID VOTE AGAINST the 90 days.
He wasn't on The Sun's list of traitor MPs (those who opposed King Tony), but that was an earlier vote I think. Funny that he and Justine Greening (Wandsworth's cool Tory MP) should be on the same side. Though I suspect he may be more concerned about the support of his Islamicist constituents than with a genuinue concern for civil liberties, I'm glad he voted the right way.
Post a Comment